Payout for severely disabled boy assaulted by police after he stayed in pool 'fixated by water'

Met officers were today criticised by senior judges for their “wholly inappropriate” restraint of a severely disabled boy who was refusing to get out of a London swimming pool.

The Court of Appeal ruled that police had been “over-hasty and ill-informed” in dealing with the epileptic and autistic boy and could have resolved the problem by consulting with his carers.

The judges also said that “nothing could justify” the methods used to restrain the boy as they threw out an appeal by Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe against a previous critical ruling.

Today’s decision follows a ruling at the High Court last year that Met officers had assaulted and falsely imprisoned the severely disabled teenager after he refused to leave a west London swimming pool.

The 16-year-old boy, who suffers from severe autism and epilepsy, had become fixated on the water and would not get out of Acton baths. Police were called by staff and after using a “high level” of force took the teenager, known only as Josh or ZH, away in handcuffs and leg restraints.

High Court judge Sir Robert Nelson ruled the boy had been wrongly subjected to assault and battery, unlawful disability discrimination, false imprisonment and multiple breaches of the Human Rights Act and awarded him £28,250 in damages, plus interest and costs, for the 2008 incident.

The Met appealed against that decision, but lost again today as the Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling.

The judges said “a wholly inappropriate restraint of an epileptic autistic boy took place” and that the police’s “operational discretion” could not be “invoked by the police in order to give them immunity from liability for everything that they do.”

The judgement added the officers had behaved as if faced with an emergency, which did not in fact exist, and added: “Had they consulted the carers, the likelihood is that ZH would not have jumped into the pool in the first place.

“The police should also have consulted the carers before lifting ZH from the pool. Had they done that, it is likely that with their help, the need to restrain him would have been avoided. Finally and most seriously of all, nothing could justify the manner in which they restrained ZH.”

Emma Norton, from the campaign group Liberty, which backed the boy in today’s hearing, said: “Nothing can excuse the officers ignoring ZH’s carers and brutishly intervening and restraining a distressed, disabled child who posed absolutely no threat.

“Sadly the police chose to drag this horrifying case through the courts rather than learning from it and implementing some overdue proper training for officers.

“Hopefully today’s wake-up call will prevent other vulnerable people from being subjected to such terrifying ordeals by those who are supposed to protect them.”

Josh, who has a mental age of five, cannot be named fully for legal reasons, but his father said at the time of last year’s ruling that he hoped the court victory would ensure that disabled people received “more humane treatment” from the Met.

The Met had argued in an earlier hearing that the officers had no other option, even though the force used had caused Josh, who is now 19, to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and exacerbated his epilepsy.

Last year’s court judgment acknowledged that it was a difficult situation for the officers involved, especially because they had received no training on autism.